About your Search

20121112
20121120
STATION
CNN 1
CNNW 1
CSPAN 1
FBC 1
MSNBCW 1
LANGUAGE
English 11
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
-- no more responsible for what happened in benghazi than george bush was for september 11th or ronald reagan with the blowing up of the u.s. marines in beirut. >> now david petraeus will testify about the benghazi attack tomorrow, exactly a week after he resigned cite an extramarital affair. and there is word secretary of state hillary clinton will testify on benghazi next month. here is the latest from the pentagon on the petraeus scandal. first let's get to katherine who is live in washington. katherine, the scope of all of this is pretty unusual. >> well those two classified hearings bring together the government's top intelligence and law enforcement officials. what was clear was the president's comments on ambassador susan rice is really getting some traction. one republican alleging that, quote, the president misinformed and lied to the american people over the benghazi affair. what was also clear is that the president wants to promote ambassador susan rice. even though she said benghazi was a spontaneous attack when it seemed clear it was terrorism. >> president obama has the gal to f
income tax? [talking over each other] a big part of it was ronald reagan's in the reform act of 1886 that, you know, increased reductions and what have you. when i got out of school, probably before both of you were born, it was in the middle 20s. and the direction we are going, guys, it will be in the mid- 50s. in the argument of so-called fairness, we are telling, you know, the top few% that pay 43% of all taxes, it is only fair you pay more. i hope it will be a very welcome outcome. connell: largely, i am sure, it is 2% versus 98% when you pull it. it is very popular, the idea of raising taxes on the rich. they favor extending the bush tax cuts except for the wealthy. neil: you assume that the rich guy pay for it. what i would not do at that table, i would not -- about the appetizer. then, what happens is we penalize those who provide -- believe me, i am not one of these, by the way, nothing wrong with that. i just think it is a disjointed argument. one thing romney did get right, although he maybe did not articulate as well as he should have, it is about everyone having a stake in the
george bush was for september 11 or that ronald reagan was with the blowing up of the u.s. marine in beirut. >> brian: was there conflict -- put it this way, let's compare what george bush did, the administration knew and what we found out on 9-11 compared to what we fine out in 9-11, 2012. within 24 hours we knew who did it. within a week or so we found out we were mobilizing against it. no one was in conflict about who did the crime. no one said this was an internal attack, the towers fell down by themselves or an outrageous protest about our middle east policy. there was a movement together to get answers together where you had a movement that was totally fractured and a president who wouldn't answer any questions before the campaign. >> eric: let's take a couple months back, this was september 10, september 9, 8. remember we were talking president obama campaigning, instead of staying in the oval office getting intel briefings. remember, he houston, texas been to an intel briefing in months. everyone said don't worry action he'll get it on air force one or wherever he is. no.
's just that second terms have become synonymous with scandal. richard nixon's second term. ronald reagan's second term. my heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. >> the iran contra affair. bill clinton. >> i did not have sexual relations with that woman. impeached after the lewinsky mess. . that's trouble for roughly 100% of reelected presidents since 1972. enough to give you second thoughts about that second term. so, is there anything the obama team can do to prevent this? now, as bill clinton might say -- >> it depends upon what the meaning of the word is. >> the fact is, if there is going to be a second term scandal, it's seeds were probably sewn in the first term. the watergate break in, nixon's first term -- >> if the obama team was going to mess up, history suggests they already did. maybe it's something that has made headlines already, but maybe not, the lewinsky scandal didn't surface in 1998, maybe the obama administration will make it's own history and avoid a second term scandal. if not, disney world will seem
's a kind of big confusion here because the classic republican economic vision and the ronald reagan vision and even the dynamic republican revolution vision that you were a part of was really centering on small business and the idea that small business is the idea that creates 75% of the country and it's this dynamic force. people fail, people succeed. things happen and small business is the engine of creation. and there was big business and small business. >> and of course the secret, something all republicans opp e oppose, someone uses regulation as a weapon against other businesses and gets things pass that had are helpful to their specific corporation but harmful to competitors whereas small businesses experience the ownerousness of regulation without a lot of the benefits. this is always a problem that the republican party became affiliated or associated. i think in some large senses wrongly with big business sense. helpful to the obama administration. signed on to obama care. what happened with two of the biggest corporations in the country. too broad of a stroke. we're against regu
s, of considers under ronald reagan and george w. bush's tax rates in 2003. it's interesting, i found two universal effects of those tax cuts. first, in every instance we cut the rates, the economy worked faster. it did work, mr. president, we got a lot of growth. but the second may be more interesting, is that guess what happened to the share of taxes paid by the rich. they went up, in fact, if you want to get more money, mr. president, out of rich people, cut their tax rate, don't raise them, because history proves it. >> dave: certainly did in the reagan years and another peace in the wall street journal a couple back, clinton rates, raised top tier 39.6 and as the authors of that piece said produced the one period of shared prosperity not because they raised taxes, but certainly lead to growth, right? >> no question. the 1990's was a prosperous era, but i think that sometimes people get a little of that history wrong what happened in the 1990's, president clinton raised taxes in the first year in office and remember, the first two years in office were a catastrophe and in fa
. bill bradley and i started with the first bill on this, and then ronald reagan picked it up and really carried at, and we got it done in a bipartisan way. when we did our original bill, we took out a mortgage deduction, we took out the charitable deduction, we took out everything, and we got right down to christie, it was 10%, 50%, 25% was the top rate, and we thought it was an elegant bill, but it could not pass muster political. we had all the real estate people and all the mortgage bankers and everybody came to town and said you get rid of the mortgage interest deduction is the end of the world, so we lost that. and all the university presidents and all the priests and all the other charities came and said you cannot get rid of that. the only thing we call on to was state and local income tax, and how we hang -- hung on to that i would never know. in the end, we were able to lower individual rates by taking more money from the corporate side, which i do not think you can do now. everybody is saying that corporate rate is too high in america, said to be competitive we have to get at
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)